Aidrian O'Connor 

Hi Vicki! 

Well, I have to say towards the end of my last packet, as well as the beginning of this one, I had lost a lot of my inertia for doing school work. I don't really know why, but it happened. Just at that time, I was moving from Portland down to Boston, and the move just threw even more chaos into the process. I'm glad to say that I feel like I have redeveloped an intense interest in doing this work, and I think that you'll see it towards the end of this packet. 

I was really glad to get your response to my second packet. It is just really good knowing that what I have done is acceptable, and I definitely appreciated all of your commentary. Thanks. I'm including two copies of my first packet here - don't worry about getting your response on that packet back to me right away. I certainly am interested in what you have to say about it, but with all the other work you have to do, I can wait. Part of that first packet was a section called "An Alchemical Illustration..." which will answer some of your questions about my style of illustration. I started drawing the geometric figures because I never really had any formal art training, but I had a vested interest in learning how to draw. I figured that, in order to understand three dimensional spacial relation, I should experiment with drawing geometric shapes. I especially focused on the five Platonic Solids (tetrahedron, octahedron, icosehedron, cube, dodecahedron), and literally just kept drawing them over and over until I felt comfortable with them. Then, instead of drawing them just as solids constructed of conjoined flat planes, I decided to represent the apexes of the shapes as spheres, joined by long tubes, similar to the scientific models of molecules. Finally, I decided to add a human element to these rather left brained depictions, and I came up with what some have compared to the "Happy Massager" figures. The whole reason that I used these figures is that they are just symbols. They do not represent people, they represent ideas. I try to define what the idea is by using color, expression, symbols on their chests, and tools in their hands. Thus my "Mirror and the Cage" comic is not about a man coming and giving a girl a mirror and a cage, and her blowing his head off, but is instead about the archetypal situation of the patriarchy in all its forms attempting to force repression on the feminine in all its aspects, and the feminine simply refusing it and moving on. 

I am working three illustrations which define symbolically the three stages of the Great Mother according to Neumann's work. I wish that I could have completed them for this packet, as I am finished with Neumann's book, but I am already late getting this packet to you, so they will just have to wait. 

Hopefully the section entitled, "Speculations; A Summery" will address the issue of my lack of learning in writing, which you pointed out in your last response. Initially, I had no idea what you meant - I was just baffled, and consequently a bit concerned. I think that in my earlier packets, I really felt like I was just reviewing material that I already knew, and as such I was less inspired by the books. But then I reached a certain point where there were so many things bouncing around in my head as a result of reading Neumann that I just sat down and started to write. Many things which were just vague ideas came out clear and whole, and linked themselves together in ways that I hadn't foreseen. About half way through, I realized that this process was in all probability what you were talking about. I certainly had experienced it before, but for some reason I just didn't make the connection. To some degree I feel that this section sums up all of my work up to this point in the semester, and I'm really glad with the way it came out. I am particularly interested in the idea that the hero's role is in fact divided into two separate stages, the misunderstanding of which has caused much confusion and misinterpretation in the past (both by myself and the authors I have worked with). Hopefully you will enjoy reading that section as much as I enjoyed writing it. I take no credit for it, however, as I don't feel like I gave birth to the ideas therein. It's more like they happened on their own, and I just witnessed it. 

I look forward to hearing from you soon! 

Good luck, 

  
Notes on The Origins and History Of Consciousness 
By Erich Neumann 

Section C: The Transformation Myth 

Part I. The Captive and the Treasure 

The mythological goal of the dragon fight is to free the captive and thus possess "the treasure hard to attain." Often times, the symbol for this treasure is a material object which is considered to be beyond material value by current cultural standards, and occasionally the symbol is an item which bestows a magical power on its possessor, such as the ability to fly, make wishes come true, or become immortal. This symbol is of course, just that - a symbol, and likewise, the powers bestowed are symbolic of an internal change in the recipient. This internal change is not due to possessing any external item, but is instead a result of the great transformation which has occurred as a result of the hero's journey as a whole. 

It is important to note here that there is a certain phenomenon related to mythology which has been labeled the typological dual focus of myth and symbol. What this term denotes is the idea that all true myth is applicable on many different levels of interpretation. Myth works in equal measure in different forms on different psychological types. For example, the introvert is prone to interpreting myth as representative of occurrences in the psychic realm (as I tend to do), whereas the extrovert views myth as related to events in the external world. Both interpretations are equally valid, and can lead both psychological types to revelatory experience. An example of this is the introvert understanding the captive role as the soul within his or herself, whereas the extrovert would view the captive as an actual external object or person. 

To complicate matters father, it is possible to interpret myth transpersonally as well as personalistically, although in this case it does not matter whether a person is an introvert or extrovert. The introvert can experience myth personalistically, and the extrovert can interpret myth transpersonally, despite the apparent opposition. For our purposes, when attempting to interpret myth, the transpersonal takes precedence over a personalisitic interpretation, and a subjective view is better suited than an objective view. This is because we are dealing with greater archetypal ideas which apply to all people and psychological types. Taking a personalistic and objective view of myth limits our scope to the actual material symbol of an idea, and consequently obscures our understanding of the meaning behind the symbol. The personalistic and objective view applies more directly to our actual experiences of myth in our individual lives. 

The captive as a symbol represents the anima or animus within the hero, despite the fact the Neumann continually refers to the captive as the anima. He does so as a juxtaposition to the assumption that the hero consciousness is masculine in character. There are clear and evident reasons for making this assumption, and Neumann's whole system is practically hinged on the idea that the human consciousness is an active, and thus masculine principle, submerged in and emerging from a receptive, or feminine world and subconscious. I understand how well this system lends itself to interpretation of the psychological growth of human consciousness, although the system is limiting in certain ways which I won't go into here. Also, there is the ever-present danger of the reader understanding Neumann's work on a personalistic level without understanding the transpersonal message he is trying to convey. 

In any case, the captive as a symbol represents the anima or animus within the hero. Once this is understood, the meaning of the symbolic action of freeing the captive becomes clear. The conscious mind has fought through its many blockages, represented by the various dragons, and at the end of this long quest finally frees the subconscious to become an active force within the hero. This event is not merely an analysis of the subconscious by the conscious mind, but is instead a total assimilation of the two halves. Neumann describes the event of freeing the captive as "the crystallization of the anima from the mother archetype" (pg 198), and this description gives a good sense of the hero extricating his or her part of the collective unconscious from the greater mass, also known as the Terrible Mother. 

In myth, the captive takes on a personal aspect with which the hero can join, although it is important to note that the joining of hero and captive is not merely symbolic of an erotic relation. Instead it represents an utter and complete union between the hero's conscious and the world around as well as within him or her. Once this union has occurred, the new kingdom so long awaited can be founded, based on the complete relation now established within the hero. The sacred rite of marriage is based in the symbolism here described, and it was not until the sacred union of conscious and subconscious was understood that the act of sex had any known higher meaning. Prior to this deeper understanding, sex was considered to be a result of blind instinct. 

The treasure obtained by freeing the captive is often experienced as a flood of creativity, a sudden surge from the well of "creative and self-generating powers of the soul" (page 208). As the hero continues with the never ending quest of breaking down the wall dividing the dualities in all their forms, this sudden surge develops into a continual flow, eventually permeating every action the hero takes. This state of ceaseless creativity is the very thing which is cloaked in such symbols as wish-giving rings, elixirs of immortality, or any other object beyond material value which is used to denote the treasure at the end of a myth. 

According to the author, "With the freeing of the captive and the founding of a new kingdom, the patriarchal age comes into force. It is not yet patriarchal in the sense that the female is subjugated, only in the sense that the male exercises independent control over his children" (page 199). This is a very interesting statement. To me, it doesn't really make sense to say "patriarchal age" and "the female is not subjugated" in the same sentence. Patriarchy, by its very definition, indicates a bias toward the masculine and a consequential bias against the feminine. I believe that Neumann is trying to convey the idea that the (masculine) conscious is now fully and completely free from control by the Great Mother, which we have learned represents the subconscious. But my understanding of freeing the captive does not entail that the masculine conscious is in control. What is the point in freeing the anima or animus if to only subject it to the control of the ego? Freeing the anima or animus entails relinquishing conscious control to a balanced state of equal power (or non-power) shared between the ego and the anima/us. That would mean balance between supposedly masculine and feminine forces, and as such neither the term patriarchy or matriarchy could possibly apply. 

A related but separate issue is discussed in this chapter, that being the efficacy of magical rites. The author points out correctly that in any magical rite, the supposed magic works because it causes a change within the person who is performing the rite, and not because it alters the external world. What exactly the difference is between magic which affects the subjective realm as opposed to the objective realm is an interesting discussion for another time. Perhaps I do not have any way to prove the following, but I feel that at some level of consciousness, there is no differentiation between internal psyche and external world, and this is hinted at by many mystical traditions. The two realms are in some way completely linked together, and consequently there is no way for something to occur in the external realm without a coinciding change in the internal realm. Perhaps more interesting is the subsequent idea that nothing can occur within the psyche without causing a change in the external world, and perhaps this is where the power of magical rites comes into play. Neumann supports this idea with the following: 

"We must not forget that the discovery of the objective, external world is a secondary phenomenon, the result of human consciousness endeavoring, with infinite labor and the help of the instruments and abstractions of modern science, to grasp the object as such, independently of the primary reality of man, which is the reality of the psyche. But early man relates himself above all to this primary reality of psychic dominants, archetypes, primordial images, instincts, and patterns of behavior. This reality is the object of his science, and his efforts to deal with it in his cults and rituals were just as successful in controlling and manipulating the inner forces of the unconscious as are modern man's efforts to control and manipulate the forces of the physical world." (page 210) 

The above described understanding of the world of the psyche corresponds to freeing the captive and obtaining the treasure. Through assimilating internal and external realms, the transpersonal ideas lodged in the psyche are immediately and completely related to personalistic experience. Subjective idea and objective fact meld into one perception, and ultimate understanding occurres. The treasures of the soul are not only generated out of the internal realm, but are suddenly discovered as external objects and experience - because there is no longer any differentiation between the two. Internal ideas are external objects, but without experiencing the process of slaying the dragons and freeing the captive, the connection between the two realms can never be understood. 

This explains why ancient cultures' sacred religious rites involved imitating the processes observable in nature. Those involved in these rites were not attempting to ensure that nature's processes would continue - it is obvious to anyone that nature does just fine without the help of humankind. Instead, by imitating the external cycles displayed by nature, humans hoped to evince similar processes within themselves. Two basic examples are fertility rites and death-rebirth rites. Ancient cultures did not hope to ensure nature's fertility with one yearly rite, but they did hope to ensure their own fertility. I think it is fair to say that they were not concerned with sexual fertility so much as they were with psychic fertility. The same applies to the death-rebirth rites, which dealt not with ensuring the birth of a new year from the ashes of the old, or even an individual's physical death and rebirth. Instead it dealt with the transformation of continual growth and change which life itself represents - dying to the old ways and mentalities, and being born into the new, or even something so simple as dying fully to the past moment and being born fully into the next. It is no wonder that culture today as a whole is spiritually sick - we have lost our understanding of the lessons which the processes of nature themselves offer, so how can we hope to understand the processes occurring inside our collective psyche? 

Part II. Transformation, or Osiris 

The vast majority of this chapter is devoted to interpreting the various mythologies associated with Osiris. Particularly of import is the relation of Horus the earthly and temporal son to Osiris the spiritual and eternal father. What this principle means is, put simply, that the hero has two aspects which are combined within him or her. The first is the temporal and personalistic aspect, which is equated with the ego, and the second is the eternal and suprapersonal aspect, which is equated with the subconscious. Osiris is considered to be the force behind the hero which is constant and never changing. Horus on the other hand is the individual personality who takes many physical forms, and whose power is rooted in Osiris, the eternal. In this way, generations come and go, but are somehow magically linked by the eternal power which is represented by Osiris. This reminds me very much of a similar idea in Buddhism. The Buddhists believe that lineage of teachers is very important, because the message that they pass from one to another is a form of energy which is passed from person to person down through the ages. Horus and Osiris are of course in fact one - "Every king was once Horus and becomes Osiris; every Osiris was once Horus" (page 248). This is in a way experiencing the eternal. No longer is the individual (Horus) bound by a physical death, because he or she is grounded in an eternal principle. Horus and Osiris are co-dependent. Without Osiris, Horus could not be the king, could not be a hero. Without Horus, Osiris would have no expression in the external realm. All of this is just metaphor for the same idea we have been discussing all along - that the egotistical earthly aspect must be balanced with the subconscious spiritual aspect, and when this has occurred, a vital transformation takes place. 

At the beginning of this chapter we find a very interesting delineation by the author - that there are three types of hero. The first is the extrovert, dedicated to effecting change in the external world as founder, leader and liberator. The second is, of course, the introvert, who is defined as a culture-bringer, the "redeemer and savior who discovers the inner values, exalting them as knowledge and wisdom, as a law and a faith, a work to be accomplished and an example to be followed" (page 220). The third type is the hero who seeks only to transform his or her personality, with no particular regard for the culture which surrounds him or her. Speaking for myself, this separation of types is a bit hard to understand, as Neumann makes it sound like these three different types have well defined goals in mind, and I believe that it is impossible to have any real goals when possessing the mind set of the hero. Goals are a product and safety net of the ego, and the hero's ego is no longer focused on goals in the way that the author discusses. By loosing the ego's goals, which are nothing more than empty hopes, along with the fears that were slain as dragons earlier on, the hero is freed to take truly effective action in both the external and internal realms. This action is of course not directed towards either the promotion of goals or the repression of fears. 

Although I was excited about reading this chapter, I found many points which I had a hard time with. Instead of going into a lengthy discussion of every quote which I had trouble with, I will try to sum up all of them in a few brief paragraphs. 

Neumann seems to think that the whole process the hero experiences is to strengthen the ego. I couldn't disagree more. My personal experience has been an attempt to continually weaken the ego in order to let the eternal force of the collective unconscious come through me. He often uses terms which denote a very aggressive conquering, especially in regard to the hero wresting control away from the Great and Terrible Mother - and thus the subconscious. Once again speaking from my own experience, I have found that trying to wrestle with nature always ends with the same result - utter defeat. It is the hero's role to find balance always in every situation, and never to conquer anything, especially nature and the subconscious mind. The following are quotes which I think speak for themselves: 

"Magic and religion, art, science, and technics are man's creative efforts to cope with this threat (annihilation by the Great Mother) on two fronts (subconscious mind, material world)" (page 221). 

"The outcome of both processes - union and transformation on ever higher levels - is the conquest of death, which has always been the supreme goal even in the psychology of primitive man" (page 251). 

"The hero is an ego hero; that is, he represents the struggles of consciousness and the ego against the unconscious. The masculinization and strengthening of the ego, apparent in the hero's martial deeds, enable him to overcome his fear of the dragon and give him courage to face the Terrible Mother - Isis - and her henchman Set" (Page 251). 

There are other points in the book, even in this chapter, where Neumann hints at the fact that the hero eventually finds a perfect balance between ego and subconscious, and consequently I am truly confused by his writing. Perhaps I am not understanding the true meaning behind such quotations as I have cited above? Maybe I am looking at them too personalistically. If that is so, then I have a lot to learn, because I don't understand how balance can be equated with the above statements, and many others like them which I did not record here. 

As I continue my reading of this book, I find that I can't agree more with the vast majority of Neumann's work. He clearly states that the eventual goal of centroversion is the union of all opposites within the psyche. He even declares that the entire purpose of the ego as a product of the unconscious is to balance all parts of the psychophysical whole. Obviously Neumann understood that at some point, the ego must balance itself with the unconscious. In the growing stages of the ego's development, it certainly must fight against the unconscious, or be consumed by it, but at the point of maturation, the ego no longer must fight the unconscious as an enemy, and the author states this outright later on in the book (page ). So why then the above quotations, especially at the last stage discussed in the individuation process (transformation)? It is only in retrospect that we can see the ways in which we do not truly understand balance in the way we view the world and within ourselves, and I wonder if Neumann were to look on his own words today if he would agree with me or not. 

Speculations; A Summery 

Having read Neumann's The Origin and History of Consciousness, a few ideas have come upon me - a sort of extension of his rather formidable work. 

Before consciousness as we experience it dawned on the face of the monkey mind, the world existed in an uroboric state. Before proceeding, we must clearly define the uroboric state, or the uroboros as it is also known. The term uroboros is borrowed from western alchemy, and the symbol which represents it is a snake which is devouring its own tale. This snake naturally forms a perfect circle, which has always been considered an apt symbol of the original unity which the universe possessed and still possesses outside of consciousness-based perception. This idea of original unity is not complex, although its ramifications are rather profound - it is the idea that the entire universe, all things perceivable and not perceivable, are in fact nothing more and nothing less than one whole. The uroboric snake expresses this state of unity more precisely than a perfect circle in the way that it includes movement. The snake is devouring its own tale, which gives it sustenance to grow longer, which provides more to be consumed in a perfect symbiotic balance. Just enough snake is being eaten to give birth to more snake to offset perfectly the snake which is dying by being consumed. Thus we have expressed in one symbol the perfect unity which gives birth and consumes life without ever producing or consuming more energy than the original total. This state is a little hard for us to imagine, our perception for the most part being consciousness-based, but we will discuss this later in greater detail. 

The uroboros has existed in effect for eternity, as time is a consciousness-based perception. There is no beginning or end to it because there is no real differentiation between beginning and end. The uroboros simply is. At some point in this infinity, a certain phenomena began to occur - the phenomena of consciousness. There can be no real understanding of why consciousness came about, or how, but we can understand what effects consciousness has in the uroboros. 

The role that consciousness, or ego, plays is that of creator and organizer. Ego-based perception is founded in a division of the uroboros into opposites, or dualities, represented most popularly in the yin-yang symbol of Asia. Once again we have a particularly apt symbol, showing a circle (uroboros) divided into two opposites (duality) with a certain spinning motion inherent in the fish-like shapes (growth and decay). The fundamental split of uroboros into dualities is necessary for consciousness, because without it consciousness cannot perform its apparently assigned task of accelerated creativity. In order to understand this assigned task, we must take a look at the entire history of life on this planet as representative of processes which have occurred throughout the uroboros. 

The uroboros, in its birthing and consuming, is forever changing. It is plain to see in nature that the uroboros is not only changing, but is evolving as it changes. All life changes generation after generation, gradually become more adapted to the environment which surrounds it, or else dying off completely and becoming extinct. The uroboros is in some way not understandable to us constantly exploring new forms, and that fact is one of the truly mysterious aspects of the uroboros. Before consciousness dawned, change could only occur slowly, through the passing of genes from one generation of a species to the next. Over thousands and thousands of years, creative change gradually occurred. However, through some unknowable wisdom, the uroboros realized that by taking one fundamental step, the rate of creativity could be accelerated exponentially. That step was and is, of course, consciousness. 

Consciousness as we know it is based in pretending that the uroboros is in fact not whole. By perceiving through the filter of dualities, we are able to compare and contrast apparent opposites, which leads directly to the ability to create, both within our psyches and externally through manipulation of the physical environment. Not only are we able to cause creative change quickly, but we are able to pass this change on to the next generation directly through transmition, as opposed to the more limited form of hereditary inheritance. 

But all of this is introduction for our true subject, that being our relation as beings to the uroboros, and even to the very consciousness which defines us. We as humans can perceive the uroboros in two realms - it is our own infinite subconscious within us, both collective and individual, and it is also the infinite external universe which manifests all around us in physical form. This view of inner and outer realms is not really applicable if we are dealing strictly with the uroboros, as there would be no delineation between what we see as two separate realms. But we can only understand the origin of consciousness through the filter of consciousness itself, as that is all that is at our disposal. We must however, if we can, attempt to understand that consciousness is severely limiting in certain ways, and thus try to establish a viewpoint which takes these limitations into account as much as is possible. 

Consciousness forms as a layer between the inner, or subconscious, uroboros and the external, or material, uroboros. It receives messages both from the internal infinity and from the external infinity, and in this way, it serves to attempt to balance the two realms which it perceives. This attempt to balance apparent opposites is the process known as centroversion. Messages arise from the subconscious as archetypal ideas and symbols, and from the physical environment come messages perceived by the five regular sense perceptions. Rarely does ego have the ability to marry the archetypal ideas which are arising from the subconscious with the events which are occurring around it in the environment, and this is due to a process called projection. In this way, projection is a negative aspect of ego consciousness, as it limits our full understanding of the uroboric phenomena which is unfolding around and within us. Without projection, it is possible to consciously perceive that the two apparently opposite realms are in fact one realm - that the occurrences within the subconscious are wholly related to the occurrences in the physical realm. This state of total perception is the state which is sought after by many mystic traditions from all over the globe, and is a subject which we will return to later. 

In order to more fully understand the relation of the ego to the uroboros around and within it, I will employ the use of a metaphor. In this metaphor, the original uroboros is represented by an infinite ocean, which is a common symbol for the unconscious mind. Within this swirling ocean, hollow spheres made of ice form. These hollow spheres of ice represent consciousness, and are similar to consciousness in that we could never fully understand why an infinite ocean would produce them. However, they are produced, and we must leave it at that. 

To be true to reality, it must be said that in some unexplainable way, each of the hollow spheres of ice contains an infinite ocean as well as being surrounded by one. The ocean inside the sphere is of course the subconscious mind, and the ocean surrounding the sphere is the external environment. 

The ice which the spheres are made of is nothing else than water in a slightly different form, and this is particularly important to note. However, there is a certain struggle which ensues between the ice and the ocean which it is made of, is full of, and is surrounded by. In the initial stages of the ice sphere's production, the ice is very thin, and the water surrounding it is constantly melting it away, as water is wont to do to ice. So the hollow sphere is forming, but at the same time the water is melting it away. This process is very similar to the war between the ego and the subconscious over libido that the depth psychologists discuss. Consciousness in its initial stages of growth is very weak, and is prone to being consumed by the subconscious continuously. This leads to a need for self protection by the ego. 

Like the ice, the ego is absolutely surrounded by and even made up of that which would melt it away and destroy it, and so it feels the need to preserve itself and separate itself from the uroboros. This urge becomes the single most important aspect of the ice sphere, and thus the consciousness, during its adolescent growth stage. Eventually, through taking a self preserving stance, the hollow spheres of ice become thick enough that the danger of destruction is no longer imminent. The ice has become fully mature, and now can move past self preservation to fulfill the goal for which it was originally intended - creativity. 

Consciousness, like our ice spheres, sits straddling two worlds. It creates when it is able to take the two apparently opposing realms inside and outside itself and bring them together. So ego is based on a fundamental splitting of the uroboros into dualities, but it fulfills its function only when it manages to overcome the split and unite those dualities back into their original uroboric state. This is experientially much harder to produce in one's life than it is to write about and understand in the mental sphere, as many of the byproducts of ego consciousness stand in the way. 

As stated, the ego spends the first major section of its existence trying to fight off the deteriorating effects of the uroboros. The need to protect the self from the unknowable other is absolutely all-consuming, and manifests itself in any attitude which is founded on an "I-versus-other" mentality. It is a necessary stage while the ego is still growing, but at the point of maturation, consciousness secures enough libido for itself that the threat of dissolution is no longer applicable. However, we as ego-based beings have spent so long trying to protect ourselves from the very stuff which we are made of that overcoming the need to fight against the other (whatever other it may be) is very difficult. To be frank, it is very rare for a person ever to completely overcome the urge to protect the self, but at some point after maturation, consciousness must by its very nature of centroversion attempt to unite itself (one half of a duality) with the other (the other half of the duality). It is at this point that we remember that we are submerged in and consist of the uroboros, and in the uroboros there is no other to protect ourselves from. So we see that ego's urge to preserve itself is one byproduct which stands in the way of uniting the inner and outer realms. 

Closely related to self preservation is another byproduct of ego known as projection, which is necessary early on in the adolescent stage of ego's growth, but becomes restrictive at the point of maturation. The ego, as an organizer and identifier quickly labels both internal and external phenomena by perceiving phenomena in relation to the ego only. Usually, the label which is projected is related to past experience by the ego - it recognizes what it thinks is a pattern that it already knows, and proceeds to assign meaning according to how it experienced the pattern previously. Ego enters into a new situation and immediately begins to judge it by similar situations it has experienced in the past. It looks for potential threats and potential opportunities, once again based on self preservation. But this projected meaning inhibits our perception of what is actually occurring both within and around us. Instead of actually paying attention to the phenomena which is occurring, ego takes a short look, gets what it sees as a general overview, and then sets about anticipating the direction the phenomena is headed. Naturally, making assumptions in the way that it does, ego makes quite a few mistakes, as the phenomena rarely manifests in the way the ego expected. This continual misunderstanding leads directly to a lot of pain and frustration for ego, and shortly thereafter becomes a vicious cycle. At the point of maturation, the need to project drops away, though only through continual effort by the consciousness to refuse projected messages. Once again, the process of projection, like the urge toward self-preservation, has become so deeply ingrained in the ego that it is not easy to be rid of. However, when it has finally dissipated, then consciousness is left with the ability to simply perceive clearly what is unfolding around and within it. This leads directly to understanding the unity of inner and outer worlds, and that leads to a simultaneous upwelling of creativity in the most pure sense of the term. 

At this point I would like to pause to note the importance of understanding that the inner world that we call the subconscious and the outer world which we call the physical environment are in fact one. What that means is that at some level which many of us never experience, every occurance which manifests inside our subconscious is directly related to a physical manifestation in the external world. It is the role of the mythological hero to fully realize this fact, and the reward for his or her trials and tribulations is beyond discription. 

The hero role as defined by many authors in the past, including Campbell, Pierson and Pope, and Neumann, has not been fully understood. In the dawn period, consciousness is still almost completely under the control of the subconscious. The following stage is that of adolescence, and it is here that the consciousness is consumed with its war of self preservation against the subconscious. Adolescence is followed by the hero stage, and the majority of authors have dealt with the dragon fight as the central theme of the hero quest. Unfortunately, they do not delineate clearly enough between two very separate dragon fights which the hero experiences. They lump the ego's fight against the dragon of the subconscious or uroboros, still held over from the stage of adolescence, with the dragon fight that ensues after the need to fight against the uroboros has passed. This later dragon fight occurs at what I have called above the "point of maturation." The point of maturation is where the ego consciousness has gained enough inertia and libido that it no longer needs to fight against the uroboros, but now must turn on itself to deal with removing the negative byproducts held over from its long war with the uroboros. It is through removing these internal blockages in the psyche that it becomes possible for the would be hero to possess the "treasure hard to attain," which is nothing other than the state of being which results from the ego consciousness uniting the subconscious within it with the physical environment around it. 

It could be argued that these two dragon fights are in fact the same, but what I have seen in other authors' works is a confusion resulting from not delineating between the two fights. As an example, at the beginning of the late adolescent dragon fight, it is still applicable to delineate dragons as related to sex roles, because the adolescent hero is still submerged in perceiving through the filter of sexuality. However, by the beginning of the second, or post-adolescent, dragon fight, the idea of delegating a particular sexual orientation to a dragon no longer applies. By completing the adolescent hero stage, the post-adolescent hero no longer needs to project a particular sex on a dragon, or on anything else for that matter. The whole point of completing the adolescent hero stage was to get beyond viewing the various worlds as related to sex roles. 

The following is an example from Neumann: 

"Thus all the essential elements of the hero myth are to be found in the myth of Horus and Osiris. There is only one qualification, and that has to do with the patriarchal conquest of the Terrible Mother" (page 252, italics mine). 

The above statement is absolutely true of the adolescent hero stage, where consciousness can still be viewed as a masculine (active) role as opposed to the feminine (receptive) environment. However, we find this quote in the final section of Neumann's book, entitled "Transformation, or Osiris." Believe me when I say that there will be no transformation whatsoever if the hero views him or herself as a force in the service of the patriarchal conquest of the Terrible Mother. Once the hero has completed the adolescent hero stage, he or she is no longer a force conquering anything. The post-adolescent hero stage is far more subtle than that, because the dragons are now part of consciousness itself. Let me make that clear - it is no longer the hero dealing with the limiting aspects of either his or her interaction with the messages that arise from the subconscious or manifest in the physical world. It is the hero dealing with the limiting effects of the actual processes of consciousness. It is not the Terrible Mother or the Terrible Father that the hero is fighting - it is his or her own habits left over from the earlier war with the uroboros. There is no longer an urge to conquer because the earlier dragon fight has taught the hero that attempting to conquer ends up in catastrophe and failure, and this rule certainly carries over into the "war" with one's own consciousness. There is no way to wage a war on one own's consciousness - if you treat it with aggression, you simply feed the complexes which are barring you from total relation to the uroboros. 

So many statements which apply to the earlier dragon fight cannot and do not apply to the later dragon fight. 

In my earlier review of Pierson and Popes' The Female Hero, I continuously berated them for what was a very obvious anger at the patriarchy, which they viewed as repressive to women. I certainly did not disagree with the idea that it is possible that women are repressed, but I did disagree with taking an angry stance as a result of the fact. Once again, I will make a subtle distinction, but my reasoning is sound. During the adolescent dragon fight, it is perfectly sensible to be angry at the patriarchy - it only makes sense, as the hero is still at war with his or her environment. But when the hero has moved into the post adolescent hero stage, there is no real concern about abstract repression unless it actually manifests as a tangible force in the hero's existence. If there is a patriarchy in place - fine, that's just the way the environment has manifested. By this time the hero has realized that his or her effective sphere of action is not the greater cultural sphere - it is only the actual phenomena that directly involve him or her that matters. I'm going to use a specific example because it is very hard to convey the subtle difference in attitude that I am discussing: 

Let's say that I am a poor african american jewish homosexual dwarf woman (stick with me here). You could say that chances are really good that I'd be pretty bitter, considering the way our culture at large would view me. There's a good chance that I would spend the majority of my life in the adolescent hero stage, as I would almost definitely feel ostracized by our culture, and this would propel me into the role of the hero. It wouldn't even be that impressive that I was living life as a hero, outside the regular system of living, because if you look at my statistics, it looks like I was born to be outside the cultural norm, almost like I belong there by birth. So here is where it really comes down to the wire - should I approach my environment with anger? No doubt people are going to give me slack, no matter where I go, so is it okay for me to just assume that people are going to treat me bad, and that I will never have any "opportunity" (whatever that word means) in this life? Should I enter into situations projecting people's dislike of me onto them, whether they actually display that assumed dislike or not? Or is it better to enter into a situation with a completely open mind, and give everyone the chance to be rude before I judge them for judging me before they actually have judged me? I'm not dealing with some removed, sterile philosophical armchair discussion of whether I have the right to be pissed off or not in view of current cultural disposition - I mean real life experience, and taking it for what it actually is, and not what I'd like to assume it is supposed to be. Now, that being said, I want it to be clear that I am not saying that anger is never appropriate. If I were to enter into a situation with a completely open mind, and some guy were to come up to me and be like, "Ha ha! You stupid poor african american jewish homosexual dwarf woman!" Then anger would be a very appropriate reaction. 

Surprisingly though, I have found in my own experience that when something like that does occur, and I am not pre-dispositioned towards anger, the anger just doesn't happen. Instead, something much more like humor happens. The ridiculousness of the situation, of someone judging me for something so trivial becomes absolutely evident, and I laugh, and agree jokingly with the would be assailant. Often then the person who was rude to me suddenly becomes aware of how ridiculous the situation is as well, and all the anger they brought to the situation somehow dissipates. Obviously, this pleasant outcome isn't always the way of things, but often it is. It has happened enough times for me to notice, and that is what really stands out as important to me. It's my real living experience, and not some abstract idea about how it should work and could work if everything was ideal. So yes, anger is alright, necessary, even good - if it manifests itself within a situation. But an attitude of anger, and especially anger taught as a doctrine such as The Female Hero or The Origin and History of Consciousness represent is absolutely not alright. 

So we see that there are some subtle differences in the attitudes that we must adopt when facing the two seperate stages of the hero role. Many attitudes apply to the fight with the uroboros that do not apply to the fight with consciousness. And it is important to note that by only completing the adolescent hero stage we are certainly not going to obtain the true treasure. We must continue on to the post adolescent hero fight if we ever hope to become true heroes. I think it is fare to say that the second stage makes the first look like a cake-walk with its subtle twists and continuous stumbling blocks. I look forward to exploring the relations between the two seperate stages and defining them with more concision in the future. 
 

"Notes on Washing Dishes" 

"Life's a lot like washing dishes - you deal with the shit as it comes in, or you can let it pile up. Either way, you have to deal with all of it before you punch out." 

-Rusty Edwards 

Dishwashers' Local 23 

The dishes come to us, already dirty. There is no need to go in search of them. It is our job to clean them up, to return the dishes to the clean, natural state that they once possessed. There is nothing wrong with the dirt on the dishes - they're just dirty, and they need to be cleaned up. 

So we set about scrubbing the dishes clean. We take a good look at each dish, and identify where the dirt is. This isn't complicated at all. When we take a clear look at this dish, the dirt makes itself evident. The is no need to spend time deciding what type of dirt it is, or where it possibly came from. We just identify the dirt, and set about cleaning it up. This is where things can get a little tricky. 

Sometimes we haven't taken a really good look at this particular dish, and we end up trying to clean it up the same way we have cleaned a dish similar to this one in the past. Or this dish reminds us of another one that was a real pain to clean up. So we just try not to look at it too much for fear of the mess it will remind us of. Occasionally, we get a little too much into the fact that we're cleaning, and this clouds our vision. We end up treating the dish aggressively, and we scratch or break the dish completely. Because of this possibility we must always keep in mind just how fragile dishes are. 

All three of the above misunderstandings end up with the same result - a dish that hasn't been restored to its original clean and pure state. If we haven't cleaned the dishes correctly, then we are not being dishwashers; we are faking it, playing around as if our job is just a game. 

So, assuming nothing has hindered the cleaning process, we put the shiny dishes back on the shelf, where they wait to be used again. There is no need to think about them now. We don't have to think, "Look at these dishes I've cleaned so well." We have just done our job, what we were supposed to do. Shortly after returning the dishes to the shelf, they get used once again, and come back to us dirty once more. This time, though, they are dirty in a different way. We clean them again, and the cycle continues. 

It is so easy to think, "I'm not a dishwasher. I'm better than that." But the reality is, we all use dishes, and thus we are all dishwashers. We would like to leave the dishes for someone else to clean for us - it's such a messy and unpleasant task. But if we don't dive right in there and get dirty, get dish hands, then we are trying to escape from our responsibility both to the dishes and to ourselves. If no one were to take the responsibility to clean the dishes, we would all get very sick. In fact, that explains why we as a culture are sick - we all like to use the dishes when they are nice and shiny, but when it comes to dealing with the mess we have made of the dishes, everyone looks the other way. 

The above is a discussion of dealing with phenomena as they arise and present themselves to you, wrapped in the metaphor of washing dishes. In order to understand the metaphor, all one needs to do is take the symbolic act of washing dishes as the act of dealing with the situations life presents to us.